Letters

DOD Strategies and Inner-City Schools

To the Editor:

The lead paragraph in your article on U.S. Department of Defense
schools promised insight into replicable strategies that all schools
could use to close the achievement gap between majority and minority
students ("DOD-Run Schools
Cited for Closing Achievement Gaps," Oct. 17, 2001). The report
itself, however, seems to show that nonschool factors and less easily
replicable school factors account for the encouraging results achieved
in these schools.

The article highlights significant similarities between DOD students
and those in stateside urban schools. In both, there are high rates of
minority enrollment, low income, and a highly mobile population. How
then do DOD students score so well? The article emphasizes that DOD
schools incorporate "high expectations of teachers and instructional
leadership of principals." Therefore, the lead researcher suggests
these DOD schools point the way for civilian school reform efforts.

These two factors, which are selectively highlighted in the story,
are secondary considerations in the report itself. Anyone interested in
what the researchers concluded might read the report. Or they might
consider briefly the implications that schools located on American
military bases are comparable to those found in America's densest and
poorest cities.

Consider these characteristics of life on a military base and
compare them to the underclass neighborhoods described by William
Julius Wilson. On the military bases, there is a cohesive, well-defined
community culture, guaranteed housing that meets code, free medical
care, full employment with myriad opportunities for advancement,
financial support for continued education of adults, commander-required
parental involvement in school, high-quality preschool programs, and
after-school care. In addition, the teachers are well-trained and
better paid than average, there is a high proportion of small schools,
and there are adequate classroom resources. In the neighborhoods
described by Mr. Wilson, none of these conditions exist.

The article nevertheless highlights the specious notion that if the
high expectations of teachers and the instructional leadership of
principals on the bases are replicated elsewhere, minority student
achievement in civilian schools will rise.

Given the profound differences between life on the base and life in
the 'hood, why should anyone pretend that high expectations and
instructional leadership are the reason for the successes in DOD
schools? Could it be that these factors are cited because they require
no money and no commitment on the part of society to children in poor
urban neighborhoods? Could it be that these factors are cited precisely
because they allow politicians to say to schools, "Just do it"?

It is one thing to say, as many of our politicians have, that ideas
that address poverty, class, family behaviors, or ethnic culture are
off the table when developing school reform programs. It is another
thing altogether to imply that poverty, class, family behavior, and
ethnic culture are irrelevant to the question of whether schools can
raise student performance. In the report, the researchers show that
these nonschool factors are fundamental to DOD's success. In the
article, the researchers show that they know which answers their
funders expect them to highlight.

What the reported results show is not that schools alone can close
the gap, but that the gap can be closed when family, community, and
schools are drastically changed. The results demonstrate what we have
all claimed to believe in the last 20 years: All kids can learn. But
they do not in the least demonstrate that with the simple adoption of
high expectations and instructional leadership, all schools can
teach.

Rona WilenskyBoulder, Colo.

Does 'No Tolerance' Apply to Adults?

To the Editor:

As you correctly report, Susan Braun, a member of the San Diego city
school board, recently threatened to shoot two of her fellow members
("San Diego Board in
Turmoil Over 'Shooting' Suggestion," Oct. 17, 2001). In her e-mail
to this effect, addressed to school district officials, Ms. Braun noted
that she did not think she could kill both with one bullet, since "they
are too heavy for that to work."

The district's police and the local district attorney excused Ms.
Braun's threat as not being genuine. That was based mainly on a
sentence in her e-mail that read, "I will seriously listen to any
ideas."

After the shootings by students at schools in San Diego suburbs, no
child who made Ms. Braun's threat would be treated so generously. In
fact, there is a no-tolerance policy in the area's schools for students
who make such intimidating statements. Thus, the qualifier, "I will
seriously listen to any ideas," would not protect students from arrest
and prosecution.

My own communication with Ms. Braun suggests she does not "seriously
listen to any ideas." After she voted to require use in San Diego
schools of the scientifically discredited whole-language approach to
the development of students' reading ability, I requested from her the
list of experimental studies on which she based her vote. In turn, I
received from her an intemperate reply that charged, among other
things, that I was attempting to sabotage the district's supposedly
highly cost-effective reading-instruction program.

Because of this, I breathed a sigh of relief when I discovered that
Ms. Braun had not added my name to her list of people who disagree with
her and deserve to be shot. I have not yet, however, received the
apology she was forced to tender her fellow board members.

Patrick GroffProfessor of Education Emeritus
San Diego State University
San Diego, Calif.

Surprised by 'People in the News' Item

To the Editor:

I always look to the "People in the News" section of Education
Week to find information about professional transitions and about
the work of various educational organizations. Imagine my surprise when
my own notice in that section did so little of that ("People in the News," Oct. 10,
2001).

Instead of information about the work of the Association of Waldorf
Schools of North America and my transition to its chairmanship, the
item featured references to a lawsuit and divisiveness over an issue
the association has little to do with directly.

My 24 years in education include grade school teaching, community
development, fund raising, and service on the Washington Waldorf
School's board of directors, as a member and as chairman.

The association represents 150 independent Waldorf schools in the
United States, Canada, and Mexico. It provides support, consultation,
publication, and curricular and organizational development. The
association is an active voice for Waldorf education and for its
contribution to educational progress and childhood issues.

Reader Sees Irony In Ohio Voucher Case

To the Editor:

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to consider the Ohio
religious-school-voucher case ("Supreme Court to Hear Pivotal
Voucher Case," Oct. 3, 2001) is fraught with irony. The events of
Sept. 11 prove decisively that this is not the time for
government-sponsored religion.

Many thought it a legal stretch when the court got involved in the
Florida presidential vote count. And the court in this instance is
again involving itself in an issue that divides people. Independent
polls show that the public does not support vouchers, and when given
the chance, people vote against them.

One thing all sides agree on, however, is that the decision in the
Cleveland school voucher case could be historic. Some liken it to
Brown v. Board of Education. Ironically, were the Supreme
Court to decide that it is constitutional to give public money to
religious schools, the court could create de jure segregation. The
majority of "vouchered" schools separate children by religion and race,
and they are not equal.

Ms. Frank's Commentary reminded us of Ron Edmonds' cry from a
quarter of a century ago: We know what to do, and can do it, but we
apparently don't care enough to do so. That is, we have the knowledge
base we need to assure that all kids learn to read, write, calculate,
and think critically. What we have to do is provide the resources
(initially, in the form of dollars) to do the job right. Educational
research supports this position, and then some.

Mr. Keller, though, decries this view of reform because, he says, it
"misses ingredients key to educational success." Some of the
ingredients he notes are ones that I, too, consider necessary for
change, but not sufficient for success. He says that if mere dollars
were truly the crux of the problem, "at great expense we could rectify
the inequities" in educational attainment.

Am I missing something here, or am I just being led through a huge,
dark, never-ending cave? We cannot implement change or rectify
inequities without the infusion of an adequate supply of funds.

Mr. Keller says we need to work differently, not merely harder. Very
good. But who will show us how? When will it be done? After school?
During school? In the summer? By osmosis? Money is the answer,
no matter what Mr. Keller thinks, and it has not been
provided.

Money is needed for staff developers, for teachers to attend
workshops, for principals to go to conferences and talk to one another
about trends and practices. Money is needed for superintendents to meet
with researchers to discuss new and promising data on doing what we do
better; and money is needed for miscellaneous other district staff
members to be trained to help implement what's new and good and
possible in order to change a culture of ingrained practice.

Change does not come cheap. But surely, Mr. Keller says, necessary
funds will be supplied to rectify the inequities. He and others like
him should stop dreaming. They seem to want the system to change first,
at no cost to the public, before educators get the money needed to
change what really counts. Something is wrong with this thinking.

Anthony A. GalitsisSpecial Assistant to the Superintendent
Community School District 15
Former Principal
Brooklyn, N.Y.

Teacher Certification Needs Dispassionate Analysis

To the Editor:

Though your Oct. 17, 2001, article’s headline reads "Foundation Stirs Debate With
Report Questioning Research on Licensure," the article itself lays
out only one side of that debate. Linda Darling-Hammond’s
rebuttal to the Abell Foundation’s report, which the article
acknowledges but does not describe, is thorough, thoughtful, and clear
both on the shortcomings of the foundation’s research and the
strength of the case for the significance of credentialing.

I could not tell from the article whether the quote from the
sponsoring foundation’s president, Robert C. Embry, about the
empirical justification for continuing current systems of teacher
certification—“It’s just a factual
question”—was hopeful, wry, or simply out of touch with the
challenge of knowing how best to equip teachers for the richly complex
work they do. If more questions in education could be disposed of with
a factual answer, we would be miles ahead of where we are.

Instead, teachers, and the work of those who do research on what
makes teachers effective, are embedded in a web of causal factors that
make the design and execution of research that could efficiently
dispose of such complex questions impossible. As a consequence of this
complexity, good educational research as well as good practices in
education are closer in design to pieces of a living puzzle than to
simple building blocks. Philosophical assumptions, rigorous research,
educated judgment, and historical, political, and other contextual
factors all require consideration in arriving at the incremental
decisions that point in the most promising and sustainable directions
for improving K-12 education.

The burden of proof that rests with anyone who asserts that good
teaching does not oblige careful and systematic professional
preparation is formidable. Even greater is the burden on those who
advocate lowering the threshold for those entering teaching by
eliminating certification.

The debate that the Abell Foundation intended to begin is about one
of several contemporary issues that deserve the qualifier “high
stakes.” These issues’ coverage in the education press
needs to reflect their significance, the passions they stir, and the
need for dispassionate analysis that combines values, facts,
experience, and objectives.

Ray BacchettiStanford, Calif.

The writer is a former education program officer at the Hewlett
Foundation.

Teaching Democracy: Not 'Something to Be Memorized and Tested,' But to Be Practiced and Preserved

To the Editor:

As a historian of 20th century politics and war, I could hardly
agree more with Diane Ravitch's plea for better teaching about
democracy ("Now Is the
Time to Teach Democracy," Oct. 17, 2001). I would add only two
points.

One, political history must regain top billing over recent fashions
to avoid it. We are told it is boring and only about "elites." The
thousands of victims of Sept. 11 were not "elites." Any teacher who
cannot bring the drama, the frequent tragedy, and the vast human
consequences of politics alive for students should look for another
line of work.

Two, at the century's turn, the United States faces a political
challenge that has worried our brightest leaders since the Constitution
was written: How shall democracy preserve itself, and win the respect
of good people abroad, when its wealth and power, and pride, reach
imperial heights? Athenian democracy utterly failed to meet this
challenge and was ruined. So was Rome's republic. To honor Lincoln's
vision of us as earth's "last, best hope," we shall have to be wiser
than some notably wise ancients.

Study democracy, its past adventures, and its necessary conditions,
here and elsewhere? We have no choice.

Paul A. GagnonProfessor of History Emeritus
University of Massachusetts
Cambridge, Mass.

To the Editor:

I am deeply saddened by the Commentary by Diane Ravitch. Her
simplistic view of multiculturalism as somehow un-American and
undemocratic is simply wrong and misleading. Multiculturalism is based
not only on the differences between racial and cultural groups but also
on the similarities. It is a celebration of the humanity of all
cultures found within many of those very differences.

While we cannot blame the events of Sept. 11 on the lack of, or
inclusion of, multicultural education in schools, we can say that
intolerance has led to the deaths of Arab-Americans and the other
hundred racist actions taken against Arab-Americans. The everyday
American who also calls up talk shows advocating the mass internment of
Arab-Americans or racial profiling lacks tolerance. These actions based
on fear, hatred, and lack of understanding, not multicultural
education, are what feed racial and ethnic tensions.

True, the values of democracy are to be celebrated within our
country, and students should know the history of their country and of
the world. This country was built on the coming together of various
groups, first in the name of religious freedom and then through the
immigrants who sought economic opportunities.

But many immigrants, slaves, and the first true Americans, Native
peoples, were also denied the blessings of the basic ideals the author
extols. Some would argue that many groups still are denied access to
these democratic ideals. Our own history is rich with stories of the
denial of freedom and human rights to groups based upon fear, hatred,
and other factors, for example, the internment of Japanese-Americans
during World War II.

Let us continue to believe in the humanity of all peoples, while
understanding and respecting the differences among us, with the goal
being true tolerance. That would be an important lesson for our
children in human rights and democratic ideals.

Margaret AdamsDedham, Mass.

To the Editor:

Diane Ravitch writes that "now is the time to teach our children
about democracy." Though I cannot disagree with her sentiment, we need
to take it a step further than merely teaching "about" democracy
(envision chalk-filled blackboards crammed with definitions and
interrelationships of the three branches of our government ... and a
test soon to follow).

Teaching and learning to be an active member in a democracy needs to
be experiential for it to work. Our children must feel the power of
democracy firsthand to comprehend its greatness, its moral superiority
to authoritarian governance, and why it is worth fighting for.

Currently, most of our schools are organized and run, if not
fascistically, certainly in the form of an oligarchy. Students take
orders from teachers, teachers from administrators, administrators from
principals, principals from higher-ups (now in the form of fax machines
and e-mails), and those higher-ups from other higher-ups like local
boards of education, state boards, or Washington.

While we can teach students "about" democracy in our classrooms,
when they enter the "real world," they will have some lingering
questions (consciously or unconsciously): Where is democracy to be
found in the American education system? What lessons have I really
learned from being a cog in this authoritarian machine for 12 to 16
impressionable years of my life? How do I participate in a democracy
when I have never had any practice?

Democracy is not something to be memorized and tested. Democracy is
something that needs to be practiced. It's not easy to be a good
citizen in a democracy. One needs to be patient, reflective, courteous,
dedicated, relentlessly critical, relentlessly positive, and willing to
compromise—yet not willing to compromise one's principles.
Practicing democracy means much more than having schoolwide elections.
It means restructuring our schools (primarily high schools) so that all
students will understand the importance of speaking in class
discussions; have an impact on school policy; congregate to discuss
school, local, and worldwide issues; have a choice in deciding their
curriculum and the methods by which they are assessed ... the list goes
on.

Otherwise, we are merely teaching our children to ride bicycles by
using anecdotes, manuals, and movies. Isn't someone bound to ask sooner
or later: When am I going to actually practice riding one of these
things before I find myself in the middle of traffic?

Douglas KnechtSan Francisco, Calif.

To the Editor:

I want to applaud Diane Ravitch for answering the question so many
educators have been asking since Sept. 11: "What should we tell the
children?" Ms. Ravitch says that the exhortations to teach tolerance,
multiculturalism, and world history in response to the horrific events
of that day are not only inappropriate but also suggestive of the
charge that weaknesses in our current educational system somehow caused
the atrocities. She suggests that we, instead, "teach young people the
virtues and blessings of our democratic system of government" in
response to this tragic day in history.

An excellent idea for certain, yet still not enough. I believe our
schools can and must do more than simply teach our children
about democracy. We must represent democracy. We must
teach the precious ideals of democracy by modeling democracy in our
classrooms each and every day. The only true way to teach children the
value of the free society in which they live is to provide freedoms in
the classroom. The only true way to teach them the value of the
individual is to acknowledge and accommodate the unique qualities of
individual students.

Early in the 20th century, John Dewey called for a shift in the
focus of education away from the teacher and toward the student. Dewey
maintained the importance of education that gives the individual
control of learning. He believed that education and democracy should be
mutually supportive. Education is a process of living, Dewey said, not
preparation for living; and democracy is a way of life, not a form of
government.

A century later, we are still too seldom putting the focus of
learning on the individual student, and the focus of democracy on the
the individual citizen.

To simply teach about democracy without modeling it is
counterproductive and hypocritical. Shouldn't we celebrate our nation's
way of life, which was so viciously attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, by
instilling the true meaning of democracy in our students by way of
real-life democratic experiences in the classroom?